Vortex Razor UHD

[Bowedup]

That’s more like it! It will be interesting to get some hands on reviews done of these.

Sorry I misread there website, I was on the Razor HD, they didnt change it still at 236’. I was a little excited for a min there.

 

[wannakillabigbull]

@Bowedup looks like the other guys have covered the FOV topic pretty well, but I'll add to it. Vortex's website still lists the FOV on the 12x as 236 ft/1000 yds. For a hunting binocular there's no reason to consider that particular set IMO when you can get other high quality sets of 12x for a comparable price and have around 280 ft/1000 yds. You'll simply see more animals when glassing.

The main draw for these Vortex Razor UHD is Vortex finally selling a binocular with AK prisms. These Vortex Razor UHDs are made in Japan and should be similar if not nearly the same binocular as the Maven B.2 with slight differences in magnification and objective size. For anyone considering the Vortex Razor UHD 12x50, I highly suggest instead looking at the Maven B.2 11x45.

Vortex Razor UHD 12x50 - 236 ft/1000 yds, 36.1 oz, $1600ish
Maven B.2 11x45 - 314 ft/100 yds, 33.25oz, $1100

The Maven B.2 is a fantastic binocular that's been out for a number of years and has all sorts of praise here and on other forums. If you're stuck on Vortex for whatever reason then the Vortex Razor HD, not UHD, has better specs for a hunting binocular IMO and can be found for a reasonable price. All of those opinions change if the FOV is listed incorrectly on the UHD.

 

[HNTR918]

The 18x56 are going on the street for $1,699. If they offered this size in the gen 2 razors, I would have bought them a long time ago. Now they bring out even better glass ... I'm sold. I've used their warranty twice due to my horrible field care. I will be adding this glass to my setup before the hunting season begins!

 

[jmav58]

Spoke to a rep at Vortex about the FOV on the UHD 12x50's and his testing show's it's closer to 306'@1000yards. He also said that some specs were posted incorrectly and they're working on getting them fixed.

 

[NoWiser]

It would be a bold move to buy these over Swaros at close to the same price. My opinion...

 

[DangerRanger]

@Bowedup looks like the other guys have covered the FOV topic pretty well, but I'll add to it. Vortex's website still lists the FOV on the 12x as 236 ft/1000 yds. For a hunting binocular there's no reason to consider that particular set IMO when you can get other high quality sets of 12x for a comparable price and have around 280 ft/1000 yds. You'll simply see more animals when glassing.

The main draw for these Vortex Razor UHD is Vortex finally selling a binocular with AK prisms. These Vortex Razor UHDs are made in Japan and should be similar if not nearly the same binocular as the Maven B.2 with slight differences in magnification and objective size. For anyone considering the Vortex Razor UHD 12x50, I highly suggest instead looking at the Maven B.2 11x45.

Vortex Razor UHD 12x50 - 236 ft/1000 yds, 36.1 oz, $1600ish
Maven B.2 11x45 - 314 ft/100 yds, 33.25oz, $1100

The Maven B.2 is a fantastic binocular that's been out for a number of years and has all sorts of praise here and on other forums. If you're stuck on Vortex for whatever reason then the Vortex Razor HD, not UHD, has better specs for a hunting binocular IMO and can be found for a reasonable price. All of those opinions change if the FOV is listed incorrectly on the UHD.

I think the 9x45 will be perfect for me and really like that the Mavens are assembled in the US. Im leaning heavily to the B2s right now, if I could be sure I would get grey and not black with the demo program I think I would pull the trigger. That's a good looking bino, plus I called maven and found that experience top notch.

 

[elkstabber]

If Vortex can't even publish the correct specs for their new top end optics am I supposed have confidence that their glass is really comparable to the big 3?

 

[Bowedup]

@Bowedup looks like the other guys have covered the FOV topic pretty well, but I'll add to it. Vortex's website still lists the FOV on the 12x as 236 ft/1000 yds. For a hunting binocular there's no reason to consider that particular set IMO when you can get other high quality sets of 12x for a comparable price and have around 280 ft/1000 yds. You'll simply see more animals when glassing.

The main draw for these Vortex Razor UHD is Vortex finally selling a binocular with AK prisms. These Vortex Razor UHDs are made in Japan and should be similar if not nearly the same binocular as the Maven B.2 with slight differences in magnification and objective size. For anyone considering the Vortex Razor UHD 12x50, I highly suggest instead looking at the Maven B.2 11x45.

Vortex Razor UHD 12x50 - 236 ft/1000 yds, 36.1 oz, $1600ish
Maven B.2 11x45 - 314 ft/100 yds, 33.25oz, $1100

The Maven B.2 is a fantastic binocular that's been out for a number of years and has all sorts of praise here and on other forums. If you're stuck on Vortex for whatever reason then the Vortex Razor HD, not UHD, has better specs for a hunting binocular IMO and can be found for a reasonable price. All of those opinions change if the FOV is listed incorrectly on the UHD.

Ok thanks, so I mentioned earlier that I’m in the market for new binos, I was originally going to get the Razor HD I tile I seen they had something new coming so I waited to see what it was, from all of your guys experience the new UHD are prob not the ones to get. I will be using these for hunting, both free hand and tripod and also for shooting archery. So by looking on Mavens websight it’s hard for me to tell the diff in the diff models that sell?
Would you guys recommend the Mavens over the Razor HD? They are the same price.

 

[generalist]

The new 10x UHDs now have similar dimensions as the Maven B2 9x (suspicious, right?). These "better" Razors with the Abbe-Koenig lenses might be slightly better glass, but you're sacrificing size and weight.

This is my Japanese Made Razors (middle) next to the Mavens.

 

[Ryan Avery]

They all come from the same manufacturer I would bet, same shit, different wrapper.

I would take that bet Ryan.

 

[Newtosavage]

How do you thank these will compare to Maven B5s?

From the looks of them, they basically ARE Mavens. Probably made in the same plant with a lot of the same components.

I agree they should have chosen a different name than Razor, unless they plan to discontinue the regular Razor, which wouldn't surprise me considering how close the Viper HD's are to the regular Razors these days and the fact that not many folks want to pay $1K for Chinese-made bins.

 

[generalist]

So the question then becomes, why pay so much more for Razor UHDs when you can just get the Maven B2s? Basically the same glass, same warranty. Vastly different price points.

 

[DangerRanger]

I ordered a demo set of B2s, as long as a cabelas/bass pro near me gets a set of UHDs in time ill take the mavens by a store and try to compare them

Bummer, I got a pair of black ones not grey. These will be going back but initial impressions of them otherwise are extremely positive.

 

[WRO]

I would take that bet Ryan.

1lb N 570 that their Kamakura OEM?

 

[eltaco]

I read a lot of speculation in this thread about what the UHD is or might be based on no actual experience so far. Not surprising, we see this with most products that come to market. I think it’s still left to be determined how much better or worse these are than the Razor HD, Swaro SLC, or Maven B2.

Sounds like the specs are wrong and it’s worth mentioning that the design team is not the same as the marketing team... honest mistake and I hope the FOV aspect is not accurate. Assuming they didn’t produce hunting optics with that narrow a FOV, these could be consideration worthy.

There isn’t real info available on glass quality or coatings selection, much less technical specs. I’m interested to see some real world technical reviews on this product.

 

[Vortex Optics]

Just clearing up a bit of confusion here. The FOV in the 12x50 UHD of 236 ft/1000 yds that was originally advertised on our website is incorrect - that value is now updated as 288 ft/1000 yds. We also corrected the close focus on the 8x42 and 10x42 UHD from 3.3 feet to 4.5 feet. We certainly apologize for the miscommunication! If you have absolutely any questions about how we figured these values, please feel free to reach out to our product experts, Ryan Muckenhirn and Mike McDowell at: [email protected] and [email protected]

Please note that if you're still seeing the incorrect values, refresh your browser and clear your cache - you'll be good to go!

 

[wannakillabigbull]

The FOV in the 12x50 UHD of 236 ft/1000 yds that was originally advertised on our website is incorrect - that value is now updated as 288 ft/1000 yds.

That's a very nice FOV for a set of 12s, and will make that pair a solid option for all around 12s for those interested in such things.

 

[Bowedup]

Just clearing up a bit of confusion here. The FOV in the 12x50 UHD of 236 ft/1000 yds that was originally advertised on our website is incorrect - that value is now updated as 288 ft/1000 yds. We also corrected the close focus on the 8x42 and 10x42 UHD from 3.3 feet to 4.5 feet. We certainly apologize for the miscommunication! If you have absolutely any questions about how we figured these values, please feel free to reach out to our product experts, Ryan Muckenhirn and Mike McDowell at: [email protected] and [email protected]

Please note that if you're still seeing the incorrect values, refresh your browser and clear your cache - you'll be good to go!

Now this changes things

 

[lundellhunting7]

Just clearing up a bit of confusion here. The FOV in the 12x50 UHD of 236 ft/1000 yds that was originally advertised on our website is incorrect - that value is now updated as 288 ft/1000 yds. We also corrected the close focus on the 8x42 and 10x42 UHD from 3.3 feet to 4.5 feet. We certainly apologize for the miscommunication! If you have absolutely any questions about how we figured these values, please feel free to reach out to our product experts, Ryan Muckenhirn and Mike McDowell at: [email protected] and [email protected]

Please note that if you're still seeing the incorrect values, refresh your browser and clear your cache - you'll be good to go!

I don't think anyone at Vortex knows WTF is going on with the FOV. I commented on the original facebook post about how the 236 FOV was to narrow and got a response on how it is more narrow than the older razers because of the of the new Abbe-koenig prisms that's why there is a reduction in FOV than the older razors..... Now they are saying its a 288 after everyone is talking crap on them..... so the HDs are 285 and the UHDs are 288..... So please tell me why I got that response of the new prisms being the reason for reduction in FOV when now you guys are saying that the FOV is 3" more than the HDs.

 

[Vortex Optics]

Admittedly, those of us on the social team here were going off the information we had on the website. We kind of took the web specs as Gospel until a few others pointed out some inconsistencies, so we ran some more tests and corrected the mistake. The reply you received on Facebook was speculative, going off the information we had available at the time. Again, we certainly apologize for the mix-up.

I don't think anyone at Vortex knows WTF is going on with the FOV. I commented on the original facebook post about how the 236 FOV was to narrow and got a response on how it is more narrow than the older razers because of the of the new Abbe-koenig prisms that's why there is a reduction in FOV than the older razors..... Now they are saying its a 288 after everyone is talking crap on them..... so the HDs are 285 and the UHDs are 288..... So please tell me why I got that response of the new prisms being the reason for reduction in FOV when now you guys are saying that the FOV is 3" more than the HDs.


View attachment 107833